07 January 2011

Howdy, gang. Phil's welcoming a day off, so I get to ask you to help me on something. (Of course, I hope Phil and Frank pitch in, too.)

My manuscript has been edited and submitted to Kregel and... well, I'm not sure just where it is. But meanwhile, I've been working with Kregel's Cat Hoort on other aspects of publication. Cat is Kregel's marketing manager who is overseeing the new release campaign for my book, The World-Tilting Gospel.

It's been a fun process, exciting and scary by turns. Cat's been very helpful, and great to work with. We have formalized the title (as you'll see), have worked on audience, presenting the book, and various forms of my bio for differing uses.

Now we get to pick the cover, and Cat suggested that I invite your input. Fun, eh? Ever do this before? Me either!

First, here are the two main candidates, presented in random order:

Cover A

Cover B

Second: your job is simply to say which you find more eye-catching and, if you don't mind, briefly explain why.

Now I realize that, at this point, you don't know a whole lot about what's inside the book. Actually, that's the point. Kregel wants to know: Which of those books look like anything you might pick up, flip over to read the back cover, and then maybe page through?

Two more things, both optional — well, the whole thing's optional, but I digress:

If you don't mind, would you either give your age, or age range (i.e. 20-25, 95-100, whatever)? Be truthful, now.

Do you have any position in a church — pastor, secretary, Sunday School teacher, Bible study leader, etc.? Share.

Thanks, I really do appreciate it, and hope it's some kind of fun for you, as this one was.

43 years old, semi-regular commenter, Sunday School teacher and occasional preacher (rarely to be truthful)...

I like cover #2. Cover one reminds me a little of some of the 70's & early 80's book/album covers I've seen...Cover 2 really nails the hanging on tight in a way I can actually imagine to be real. (This coming from a guy who used to hang off the couch as a kid and look up at the ceiling imagining what it would be like if that was the floor...)

I'm 35, a homeschooling mother of two girls, and I've been a Sunday School teacher.

I prefer cover A and would definitely pick up that from the shelf. I would probably pass on cover B if I was just looking at the art and not reading titles. Cover A just struck a pleasant visual tone with me; I can't offer anything much beyond that.

I like the graphics on A, but would change the title to a much more colorful title in order to pop out and contrast with the rest of the cover...which is why I like the colors on B. I don't like the guy upside down in the chair, but the contrast in B is much stronger. I would change the upside down chair to an off kilter chair.

I like the second one, for many of the reasons already listed. The first does look like a retro-thing (in way that I don't think works), and the guy is goofy. The second one made me think about which direction was up and what was going on, and it's basically that the Gospel has radically changed the kid's life and he's right-side-up -- and trying to cling to it -- in an upside-down world. So, #2.

I'm 41, a Sunday School teacher, wife of an elder in a reformed presbyterian church.

I prefer cover 2. That was my first reaction and still my reaction after reading the comments. I think I dislike cover 1 because the courier font is uncommon these days and it looks dirty.Cover 2 looks much more like current covers (which may not be a real good thing :-) so it is more comfortable for me to look at.

The first cover is more eye-catching -- I think unquestionably it is the more visually-dynamic. However, it looks like there's a Marylin Meberg book in there, and your book is not that. I think it will attract the wrong people to pick up the book, and then put it back down when it's not what they thought it was.

The second cover is a more-interesting concept, and looks more like what you're talking about in the book. If these are your choices, I vote for #2.

I'm old, I get all my books for free because I'm a blogger, and I used to be the coordinator for Adult Sunday School in my last church, but work has caused me to only be someone clinging to the Gospel for dear life.

I prefer cover A. For some reason, the first thing I thought of when I saw cover B was that it was some sort of Youth Pastor/teenager book - just something about the upside down chair. 40, no church position.

I'm liking B. The contrast of colors grabbed my attention more, and my eyes were naturally drawn to the title first, then the subtitle and picture. Cover A didn't make sense at first glance since my initial thought was "Why is that guy doing a handstand on a globe?" until I read both the title and subtitle. ;)

Dan,Who's your target audience? The youthfulness of the young man in the chair in Cover B would indicate a high school-college age group to me. If I didn't know who you were, I would definitely pick up Cover B and turn it over to read. Depending on what I found, I might buy it to give to one of my kids to read. I like Candy's suggestions: contrast the color of the title, make the young man in the chair off-kilter somehow, but not hanging upside down.

55-60, adult SS teacher, former elder in EPC church, educator to young minds in our public school system in spare time.

I just turned 30 a few days ago (thanks for reminding me). I teach a Sunday School class at church.

I like cover #2. If we're judging simply off of which gets more attention and interest, #2 is the winner. I believe it's because unusual photographs draw my eye more than unusual illustrations. The color scheme is also more eye-catching.

I'd definitely say the first one! Second one's not bad, but the first one would stand out more and make me pick it up off the shelves. It *does* have a bit of a retro-feel to it, but I like old books, so that's a plus for me. It just draws my eye more and, in my opinion, more attractive.

I prefer Cover A because cover B looks too much like the stuff I'd expect from emergent groups or cool youth pastor types. I'm actually thinking along the same lines as Frank (although with the other cover) in that people will like its look, pick it up, then put it back once they see what is in it. I hope that you'll be getting endorsements on it either way because that is how I usually decide on buying books from people I haven't read and don't know.

I am 38 and have taught adult and child Sunday School and had the fearful, humbling experience of preaching a sermon. That was all in the church that I am actually leaving now, though.

Ok, my vote is also for the second one, but I’m not thrilled with either one and would probably avoid it if I didn’t know who the author was. Why? I’m not exactly sure, I guess it just seems a little gimmicky to me and I try to avoid gimmicks.

I’m 57 and a member of a church and I refuse to consider any leadership position until I figure out this servanthood thing.

I used to dabble in game programming, and B reminds me of a game programming book, many of which have a lot of green on the cover. The font type used at the bottom of the cover reminds me of the same thing. If B used a different font, and a color other than green, then I might prefer B over A.

"A" is my pick. I'm 40, a youth/associate pastor, and I think cover "B" looks exactly like the kind of book I wouldn't pick up. It's too...too...idk it's like it's trying too hard to be cool. The first cover is fun, interesting and inviting.

I would go for Cover B: while acknowledging that the guy in the chair looks like he may have tried too hard to be cool, the overall design and especially the contrasting colours grab the attention far more effectively than Cover A. If I didn't know the author I would certainly read the blurb and check out some endorsements/reviews before I bought a book with either cover, but I guess I would be more inclined to do that with Cover B.

31 male was involved in my old church hope to be involved in new church (but its a lot bigger 40 vs 1000 don't know how i'll fit in yet only been there twice so far) sorry back on topic cover A: like it look like simple easy to read book though it may look like the guy is holding on to the world not the gospel cover B: i really really don't like it. i don't like how its cut in half. also looks like an attempt to make a boring book trying to look cool.

i don't really love either, and i think it's because there are too many things going on. i think either the tilted title or the upside-down theme needs to go. they play against each other. Does it tilt or does it invert?

i wouldn't pick up the second one. i do like the first one, it has a hipstamatic look which all the kids seem to like.

the fonts seem to work better with the first, but in both the text just seems to be scattered. my eyes are racing all around the covers trying to figure out what they're supposed to be looking at.

I do love the retro style of A, but I don't think it works with your style of sober-minded, hit-hard nonfiction. Besides, cover B simply does a better job of conveying a sense of what the book is actually about.

I'd have gone for a more pleasing color-scheme on B, but what pleases me falls flat for some people, so let's not get into colors.

I'm disappointed they haven't slapped the Pyro-logo anywhere on either concept. No prob. We'll fix that with a suitable blog-graphic when the book comes out.

I don't like either one but I would pick A because the upside down chair thing like others have said is just corny. Maybe the third time is the charm...Try another cover. I am 43, no position, but I was an elder in my previous church.

So I commented before reading the other comments. Weird. Seems that those 30 and younger are going for the A cover whereas those older (than that, NOT OLD) are going for the B cover. I wonder if it is a reaction against all the hip-looking stuff I was forced to read in the 90's.

I would go with cover B. It makes more sense to me that he is "hanging on tight". Cover A is more eye-catching from an art standpoint, and looks a little more "adult", but I don't really get the handstand on the earth thing. I know I'm a little dense, but it would make more sense to me if the guy in cover A was hanging off the edge with one hand or something. If I got more of a "hanging on" feel I would go with cover A, but as it stands I pick cover B. Anyway, I'm 32 and a youth pastor and I plan to read the book either way.

I like the first cover. The blue on white is quickly seen (maybe light and dark contrasts), and the title is serious, but the illustration a little wacky-cartoony, so it kind of creates a juxtaposition of sorts - I'd definitely look at the back to see if this book is serious about the goods it presents.

Second cover...Green on black grips me more quickly than blue on white...i also find it easier to read the title in that color scheme if i were passing over a shelf full of books....then, the picture itself hooked my curiosity more...i'm 27, currently a pastoral intern/grad student, hoping to serve as a pastor soon

Long term, I'd rather have cover A on my shelf. It's more pleasing to the eye and has a softer approach - like we're in this together.

Short term, cover B is more eye catching which will likely lead to more sales but I personally don't like covers with real people on them (unless they are relevant to the book ie the author or subject of the book)

The downside to Cover A is that it looks too dated. On the self someone may mistake it for an old book and assume it's less relevant than something newer.

The downside of Cover B is that it looks much like all the other books on the shelf (and a little PoMo if you ask me)

At 52, cover A impresses me as dated rather than retro. (I remember the style from the first go-round.) Also, the image doesn't seem to imply that the world has changed, but that I am uncomfortably counter to it (which may be true, but is still...uncomfortable).

Cover B, otoh, catches the eye with bright colors. The image implies that what's in this book will "turn my world upside down," but somehow I'll finally be right-side up because of it and hanging on just fine.

I have held several lay positions in the past, but am not currently teaching.

I like the first one. It catches my eye a little more, although it does seem a little more on the kiddie side. If I saw someone reading a book with cover A, I'd be intrigued to ask what it was (assuming I couldn't see the title). On the other hand, if I saw someone with the second cover, for some reason, I wouldn't really take notice. I am 27, layman, worship servant leader/small group servant leader. Also, just had a baby boy, so perhaps that is why the cartoonish cover is more appealing to me.

I like A better. It's got a cool retro feel to it, and it's fun. I think your writing is fun to read, so it fits. I'm not a fan of B. I generally don't like book covers with photos of real people on them, and the guy in the sunglasses and stuff looks like it's trying too hard to be cool (like a youth ministry book from days gone by). Also, I'd think that cover B will look a bit dated in a few years, as the guy's trendy clothes (esp. the shoes) won't be so trendy anymore.

And I'm 30 years old and my only current position in the church is as a lay Bible study leader. I have been in vocational ministry in the past, though, and intend to be again after I finish my current degree program.

I am 45- and lead the women's Bible study at my church. I like the retro look of A- I really do not like the outfit/shoes/sunglasses of the guy on cover B - and I feel very old for having such a strong reaction :-/ It looks too emergent/cool/hip - again I am feeling really old.However - his being upside down in the chair makes more sense. It actually makes me feel dizzy looking at it. Yeah, I know- OLD.So I guess I will have to go with B.By the way- my 9 y/o daughter picked B - she said, "It just fits with the title better."

I vote for cover B. In cover A the world itself is not tilting, which seemed odd to me, given the title. B has no world, but I like the "gospel turns my world upside down" idea. The art in A doesn't inspire any hopes of a firm word within the book (which I'm confident you'll have). B does a better job of that.

I like cover #1 better. Much better. Cover #2 looks like youth group curriculum. And I used to be a youth pastor, so I know my way around youth group Bible study materials. I'm 28. I currently pastor a small, rural Baptist church in lower Alabama. And I'm in seminary.

My preference is the second cover. The first looks like it could be the cover of a children's book, or an old-school, business how-to book.

The second is edgier and more eye-catching. I think it would do a better job drawing in potential readers who may not automatically pick up your book. Definitely more modern looking.

For marketing research purposes, I am a 28 year-old homeschooling, SAHM, to 4 kids. FWIW, I live in th L.A. area. I used to be an intern for Children's Ministries. I'm a regular Pyro reader, but usually too intimidated to comment. ;)

Overall I like cover B better. I like the blocking of the colors and the colors themselves. However, there is something about it that just leaves me a bit dizzy. Literally, like it is hard for me to visually take it all in.

The first cover is easier on my eye but lacks the punch of the second one.

I will always be 35yo (okay, I'm a bit north of that), degree in theology, homeschool mom, and I wear glasses. :-p

I really like Cover A the best. Cover B just looks a little too '90s for me. Cover A is just retro enough to be really cool, and it definitely piques my curiosity. I am a 27-year-old Sunday School teacher and seminary student with a communications and design background, so I love this kind of stuff! :-)

Sorry may I add something to my first comment-I voted for B reluctantly because of what the guy is wearing. It's not just his clothes, shoes and sunglasses - it's that he looks too relaxed- more like he is sunbathing rather than "holding on tight." So even though the picture coveys the idea of the title- the image is a little confusing because of his posture and relaxed look on his face. Perhaps I am over thinking it.

Don't like A. I would take it as something written in the 50's or 60's.

B is better; more eye-catching, though I'm not crazy about it. I suppose it depends on who the attended audience is.

B does look contemporary, and with the title may lead some to think that the book is some new-age look at the Gospel (following this blog, I'm sure it's not). This is probably a good idea in that some of the people who most need this book will buy it.

I like the second one. It is brighter, clearer, and more professional looking. The first one looks more like a childrens book cover.I'm 36 and work at our church doing audio/video production - though very part time now.

I much prefer the feel of A. The colors and retro styling appeal to me personally. But... it's too busy - visually confusing (which is the title/subtitle?), the guy looks too corny for a serious book, and why is he upside down? As if he's in the wrong, and the world is in the right.

But B looks exactly like the kind of book I'd avoid - too hip/edgy/youth-oriented/possibly emergent.

However I LIKE the idea of the person being upside down... yet being right. As if his correct orientation had nothing to do with his surroundings. Yah.

The problem with using an actual photo is that the guy is going to look dated (esp. clothing) in about two minutes. Which is why the 60's styling of the first cover works better for me, I guess. It's already dated, therefore retro. Maybe.

I am old (44), uncool, unhip, and uninfluential (have no position at church but member), but I buy a lot of books. ;D

I like the first cover better, but I have to say I'd be more likely to pick up #2. For some reason the first one - I think it's the colours - looks like an older book, whereas the second looks fresh and interesting.

When the first cover scrolled up and all I saw was the top-hatted guy, my first thought was "Oh, that's SO Dan! Awesome!" One of the reasons your writing is compelling is that it's solid and hard-hitting, but often disarming because of the wit and color you add. So, the guy on his own I love.

But, I agree with those who've called out the seventies circus font and the grainy dirt stuff all over it. It's distracting.

As for the other one, I'm definitely in the "Meh, too cool for school is so not cool anymore" camp.

So, perhaps a compromise might be to keep the graphics on version one, but cleanup the background and find a different font. And also tilt the name ten or fifteen more degrees. It looks more committed, and less like the graphics guy wasn't paying attention. :)

I'm in my late-thirties, womens' Bible study teacher,and would love to be a more regular blogger (er, as opposed to irregular). Other than that, I've been told my position is supposed to be eyes down and head covered, but I've got issues with that. Y'all can pray for my sanctification. :)

I would choose cover 2 simply because the picture really depicts what the world, and a large majority of the Church, is doing... Just sitting. Often times, and unfortunately, it takes the world tilting to shake up our lives and grab our attention.

Don't like either that much, but prefer A. At first glance, in cover B it looked like the guy was in some type of back-brace and had something wrong with his back. Maybe it's the contrast of the lime-green and white there, it just doesn't look right -- and I'm used to seeing covers like A (okay, I guess I'm more retro and remember the older book covers). I'm 45 and a layperson.

I'm not crazy about either one, but riding on JD's coattails about the first choice: Yes, exactly, a 60's Broadway musical poster and more specifically "Funny Girl" starring DP's fave-rave Barbra Streisand.

second cover. It reminds me of the postmodern cow/dolphin photo from about a year ago. The irony of a book by DP appearing to be postmodern on the cover and then being anything but postmodern is priceless.

I pick A, if you're going to laminate it. The colors will really pop, then. Some of you who think it might look dated might think of it as being softcover without laminating, which would make it look dated. I actually think the first one looks a little more edgy than the second.

To be brutally honest I don't care too much for either cover. The first one immediately brought to mind a book of humor - which actually would probably cause me to take a look, even if I was browsing for a serious read. The second cover leaves me indifferent. On the other hand, the title/subtitle and the author's name would immediately get my attention and cause me to take another look (with either cover).

Besides being a long time reader here, I am 55, a member of a small Baptist church's leadership team, and have the privilege of preaching about once a month at a local nursing home plus filling the pulpit on the rare occasions when our pastor takes a vacation.

I'm kind of with what Shelby commented. This is my first time comment but long time lurker. A is just retro enough to make it go and if B had it's chair bolted to the floor of the "Millenium Falcon" with the window in the background, you might have something.Change the Earth to the "Death Star" in A and they might fly off the shelves. 40 years old, elder, ss teacher, minister of the Gospel.

I prefer cover B, however, if I could make one change I would lose the dude and leave the chair empty. If the chair were empty I think it would make me think harder about "hanging on tight" myself and not just watching someone else try to do it in my stead.

Immediately when I saw cover A I imagined it was a book written in the 50's. Also the guy on cover A is just doing a handstand - not nearly as impossible as it first seams. Finally, the text on cover B flows much better: Title, Author, Subtitle just seems to be more in order than the Subtitle, Title, Author arrangement of cover A.

I'm 32, teach Sunday school on occasion, play trumpet when I can, and otherwise just try to take my responsibility in the pew as seriously as possible.

Dan, if you wrote your book in any way with an eye towards edification of the saints, then the "eye-catching" value you seem to seek probably should not be part of your equation (in what to place on the cover).

If, on the other hand, your book is but another in the line of "modern culture and Christian worldview" (usually with an eye to the hip and trendy) - then either of your options will do the trick...

No one of reputation, and younger than the majority of the commenters on this thread.

I prefer design #2 because it's more clever, but also because photos tend to make book covers look more professional. Illustrations, even very well-done vector illustrations, can often seem low-budget unless done in a very minimalist style. For example, one alternative for the first cover would be to simply have a small globe on the front rotated 90 degrees (i.e. on it's side) with a stick figure underneath hanging on, and then mostly white space over the rest of the cover.

I like cover B. It grabs my attention, and also makes me think of how the whole world seems to be completely upside down when compared with a biblical worldview. I'm 32, don't have any ministry experience.

I like book cover 1. It looks better artistically. I personally think images with "real people" end up making it look cheesy and dated. I know, I'm weird. I'm also 40 years old, a female. No position in church at this time, though I've worked in Sunday School and with kids' programs before. I'm a home school mom.

My 12 year old daughter, without looking at my opinion (before I typed this) also picked book cover 1. She said that book 2 looks like it's for 13 year old boys, not for any other age or group. She helps with toddlers on Wednesday nights for bible club.

An amusing twist on the second one would be to show an entire room rotated 90 degrees on its side, with a big jumble of people in a heap at the bottom (having fallen when the room tilted) but one dude in the middle standing perfectly straight to the side as if the room hadn't tilted at all.

No, seriously, from a purely aesthetic point of view, I prefer the mid 20th-century style of the first cover. For me personally, I'd totally pick that one up over the second cover.

As a few have said here, the second cover looks a little too much like something aimed at the youth and/or "Christianoid" and/or evanjellybean market. If I saw it in a bookstore, I might not even give it a second glance.

If this is all there is then the "B" cover is a clear winner. The colors on "A" are all wrong. It looks like a cold winter day and the connection with the book title is lost.

"B" is edgier ... if your audience is 20s-30s, but otherwise it would be better with "cartoon guy" in the chair. I'd also opt for the chair guy inverted, clinging with his hands, with his posterior aimed downward.

Another thought... the "B" cover is for a paperback, not a hardback... is that where you're going.

And my qualifications... absolutely none, except I'm older and wiser than you, and my heart is in children's ministry at church and in the slums of the world.

I just gotta ask... for a blog with impeccable graphics, why aren't you using the same team for the cover art.

46 or 47? (not a math person!)...almost 20 years of jr. high ministry under my belt. No current position but edit & advise on the church's website.

I like "B" the best. First, I love that shade of green!! It's the color of my foyer and dining room. Obviously, YMMV. Moreover, I think "A" looks dated. The guy is in an odd Charlie Chaplin pose and the colors just don't jump off the page the way the colors do on the 2nd option.

I do like #1. I think it's fun & eye-catching. But it makes me think of an Ellen Raskin book so if I just glanced at it the assumption part of my brain would be assuming that it was a middle school book.

I'm 30, and I am the father of 6 kids... I have done youth, and sunday school, and lead many a homegroup bible study. I like the 1st cover best, but its only because i think the guy on the second cover looks like he's relaxing, and not holding on for dear life. The guy on the first cover reminds me of an oldschool church goin dude. to me he depicts the idea of holding onto the biblical world view and what its really like...

I would definitely be more likely to look at B. A looks kind of cartoony and unserious to me - I think the only book I have with a similarly-toned cover would be DeYoung and Kluck's Why We Love the Church, and I wouldn't have even looked at that one if I just saw it on a shelf without knowing anything about it. It reminds me of the covers of just about any 'youth'-oriented book/magazine/study that wants to let you know it's cool and doesn't have too much serious Bibley stuff to weigh down the fun.

B looks more like a legit book that might contain real theology. I like the big green title at the top - it catches my eye more than the white at the bottom of the first.

The second one (cover B) is much more eye catching. The contrasts of balck and green in the lettering as well as black and white contrasts between the man in black and the white chair catch the eye pretty quickly. Cover A has no strong contrasts and doesn't grip the eyes. Cover B also makes you chuckle, which is always good. I am 39, and am between churches.

neither. the first one looks like it came out of the dark ages and the second one looks like a man with a propeller attached to his rear end.

On balance I would go with number one, but only reluctantly and because it relates more closely to the title. If you had the content of 'A' with the style of 'B' I would call it 'C' and call it a winner!

It may be too late for a clarifying question (or perhaps this is privileged information),

but it is there there any data about the projected target audience for this book? Narrow or wide age range? Already solid in their worldview (meaning, of course, that they agree with us ;) ), or uncertain and needing direction?

Both covers seem to indicate your target is twenty-somethings in need of guidance.

Which is great, as long as plenty of them are the spending and reading kind. I care about edification and your kids' college fund.

I'm going to spend the rest of the day looking at various books and asking all kinds of questions about why the art is what it is. This blog never fails to make me think hard about something. :)

Dan said ---Can't much edify people who won't buy it; people won't much buy it if they don't pick it up; people won't much pick it up if something doesn't catch their eye.--

Yes, Dan - that certainly holds true, more often than not, in your garden variety marketing department decision making processes.

But it does not appear to me something handed down to us Scripturally, nor can I point to it in any sound tradition that I am able to discern.

The Apostles, the early church fathers, and the Reformers all seem to have missed this simple line of reasoning which we so readily import into Today's ministry decisions. (Irony, in attempting to reform and instruct the young and restless we are so eager to do it their way and using their methods.)

But if it is true that "catching the eye" in advancing sound doctrine isn't part of God's way, and that we can't point to it in any sound tradition- should we not at least to give it slightly more thought than a few marketing slogans tend to project?

Dan, I find it very interesting that many of the votes for #1 come from people young enough to have not lived through the time period that now makes that style "fresh." Or maybe I should say, younger may prefer #1.

Myself? Both need work. #1's brighter, whimsical feel is more attractive to me as a whole, but what the art 'says' doesn't fit the tome. #2 is heavy with the black/green scheme, plus the guy's world isn't tilted, it's clear upside-down. Hmmm, that actually may be appropriate. But it's not as attractive to me.

I may be in the minority, but I like cover one better. Though I'm not all that fond of it. Number two looks emergent-ee and trying to hard to be hip. I'm in my late 30's...used to work in our church Children's Ministry...

It all comes down the same fundamental question, of finding the right balance between proclaiming the pure, unadulterated Gospel on the one hand; and being in the world (while not of the world), on the other. This seems to be what 95% of the tension between everyone from the emergents to evangelicals to the reformed to the Truly Reformed is all about.

...Or did you mean "holy" as in "with holes in it," like Swiss cheese, a donut, or a bagel? That could at the printing costs, but it would definitely be eye-catching.

I like A better but wish the guy was tilted a bit, maybe even something suggesting “worldly” motion that he’s fighting against. B has an “emergent” look to me, especially with the trendy dude in it.

I’m 52 with no position in Church at this time.

I do have to add another congratulations Dan. It must be a very exciting time (and nerve racking a bit I’m sure) but I’m very happy for you… and if totally honest… a little envious. Be sure and slow down enough to enjoy the ride! ;-)

I much prefer B. I'd be unlikely to pick up A. It's too cartoon-y and disorganized for me.I'm 42. No position in a church right now because we're temporarily stationed somewhere. Have been a Sunday School teacher & Bible study leader.

Hmmm. CGrim's comment at 11:17 brought to mind something the second cover made me think of.

Have you read C.S. Lewis' space trilogy? There's a scene in the third book (okay, geeky, I know) where angelic beings appear to a group of people.

But they're not exactly standing upright. Because their orientation has nothing to do with earth. So it gives the effect, not that the angels are leaning, but that they are in fact upright, and everything else is off kilter.

make sense?

That kind of idea is what I really like about the second cover. What I didn't like, was the uber-hip, emergent-ee style.

Before I comment on Hither and Tither, I was directed thather. Glad I was, to save Dan from utter financial ruin from picking the wrong cover! ;-)

OK...I like "A" and "B" but for different reasons, and with different flaws. Yes, "A" is retro, but I like the bright colors, the contrast. But it looks kind of smudgy with the ink smears on the side.

On the other hand, at very first glance...I repeat, at VERY FIRST *GLANCE*, I thought the guy was hanging on to the side of a commode in "B"! Thankfully, I saw that and thought that it looks like the cover for a modern youth ministry or "hip churches". On the other hand, it is eye-catching, modern (although I wish the seat color wasn't pink, it doesn't look "manly" for a modern man's home). Oh well.

So having said that, since this book is for believers, and new ones in our modern world, I'd rather not give even the hint of hindering the Gospel, even by an old-fashioned picture. I'm guessing this book will go back to the basics in a big way, and upset enough people even at first glance in the bookstores. I don't want the cover to assist in that in any way, even if the idea sounds silly to us aging folks.

In short, if you can change the chair color to something other than a feminine color, I choose "B".

I choose #2 above, but in all reality I don't really like either. Do you have any other alternatives?

They both kind of seem generic, there's no real artistic value to either. The first looks too comic bookish and the second does look like something that you would find on a how to book for being a "relevant" youth pastor or something.

Dan, for future reference, I suggest you use SurveyMonkey for a question such as this. As far as I know, you can use it free for up to 10 questions. You can instantly quantify results and follow responses as they come in. People can leave comments and it is so user-friendly to set up.

I don't know which privileges are for pay, but you can also filter responses (according to age of the responder?) and do some other cool and helpful stuff.

Wow! 176. I haven't read them all, but several objected that B looks too emergent-y...I say, GREAT. Isn't that a mission field Dan wants to reach with a little tough love? Personally, getting this book into more of those hands is a great idea.

I like the first one on it's own, but in the context of a store with a lot competing for the attention of the buyer, i think the second one will be more attractive, as it is simpler and more clean-cut. So my vote goes to cover #2.

This 46 year old likes cover A.No church position.That's my immediate feeling just after seeing both. I would pick up A to read the back cover. I wouldn't pick up 2 as quickly. Probably because I'm attracted to the drawing more than a photograph no matter how clever the shot is.

“…but several objected that B looks too emergent-y...I say, GREAT. Isn't that a mission field Dan wants to reach with a little tough love? Personally, getting this book into more of those hands is a great idea.”

I thought of that and almost said it but getting it into their hands because of the emergent cover and getting them to read it, when it’s bound to be loaded with “d”-word (doctrine) kind of stuff, is another thing.

I mean… seriously… just how superficial do you think these people are? Wait a minute… on second thought… well… never mind. ;-)

I like the second cover better. It matches the subtitle of the book better (however, it doesn't help much with the World-Tilting Gospel part)

The first cover does not stand out as much, nor does it quite seem to convey the intent well, as it seems like the guy is embracing the world, rather than a 'biblical' worldview. I doubt that the book will be about hugging the world, right? Plus as others have mentioned, the guy looks a little strange.

Cover # 2 does grab my attention with the layout of the title and colors, but the dude just isn't hanging on tight enough. Jonathan Hunt's propeller comment almost brought tears to my eyes.Like the colors and the idea of the globe on # 1, but the handstand guy just looks out of place.Seriously, like someone else said, it could be wrapped in plain brown paper and I'd buy it, but I do understand lots of folks judge a book by it's cover :o)Now my confession, I'm 48 and a church secretary.

I like the first cover better perhaps because I am more old fashioned and find in more interesting, though I admit the second is more eye catching, but my response is what in the world is this about anyway. So I vote for cover A. 55 years old (explains a lot), elder and Bible study teacher.

I guess the first cover is more eye-catching, but in an irritating, turn-off kind of way. Don't care for the imitation 60's musical type of style. I would therefore prefer the second. ("Emergent" did not enter my mind as a possible categorization of its style.) If anything, I would have pegged the first one as trying too hard to be retro and therefore "hip."

Apparently I'm in the minority, but chalk up one more vote for cover A. I like the retro-poster look of the graphics (like a screwball comedy from the 60s) and the sense of the world being turned upside-down.

Cover B is more in keeping with your subtitle, but a little too youth-ministry-ey for my tastes.

40, occasional Sunday-school teacher but no formal church position otherwise.

I'm a 53 year old baby boomer who is also hanging on to my faith for dear life. The most important job I do is trying to be contagious for middle school kids (not because I love kids so much, but the mature adult that they can be) I don't like either cover. Please start over

Okay, I kinda scanned through all the comments--guess I'm not alone in seeing "emergent" written all over the second cover!! :)

And Gilbert, I don't think that chair is pink. I think it's white, but because of the lighting, the bottom of the chair looks pink.

(And you know, this whole thing about telling DJP how old we are and whether we hold any positions in church--don't think I've ever participated in any introduction en masse quite like this, online or offline. It's kinda fun!) :D

I'm 37, with a background in video production, marketing, and graphic design. In the past I served in choir and various children's ministries. Right now I run a tutor-and-taxi ministry to five children living in my home. (Said the homeschool mom with a high-mileage Suburban.)

I like/hate both of them, but I think Cover #2 does a better job of catching the reader's eye and communicating the content of the book. I have a few ideas on how each can be improved.

Cover #2 Pros:

1.) Overall cleaner layout. I tend toward preferring cleaner layouts as a rule, while some designers like throwing in lots of elements to create visual texture. I think #2 works because there are a few strong visual elements, rather than many items competing for attention.

2.) Title design -- high contrast of green-on-black, along with the placement at the top and the relative size of the title compared to the subtitle, makes it a major focal point. Dan's a first-time author, so he can't put his lovely mug on the cover and expect to sell books. The cover has to sell the book's thesis in about 3-5 seconds.

3.) Color -- the bold colors help make it more eye-catching.

4.) Chair guy -- the overall visual of the chair on the ceiling does a somewhat better job of selling the concept, but there's room for improvement in the execution of the visual itself.

Which leads me to the Cover #2 cons...

1.) Chair guy -- his arms make him look too relaxed, yet awkward; he's not "hanging on tight." And I think the clothing and age of the guy leads some people to think it skews young.

2.) Fonts -- they're a double-edged sword. Contemporary enough to say "this is a timely topic"? Too trendy, with a short expiration date? I think I lean toward too trendy.

3.) Title -- "world-tilting" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue (those L's are too close together), and it's a little confusing. "Wait, I thought the world was already tilted. Why do I want to tilt it with the gospel?" It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Sorry, but there ya go. "World-tipping," maybe?

Cover #1 -- I think there are two main things wrong with Cover #1.

1.) The visuals don't strongly support the title, and in some ways contradict it. I get how it's just a visually different version of #2, but it doesn't communicate the same things.

The man, rather than being dressed like a twenty-something in a hipster uniform, is at the other extreme in a three-piece suit and hat. He's in the working-stiff's uniform of fifty years ago. Neither seem like they help your target audience (25-49?) put themselves in the picture.

Furthermore, the guy looks like he's holding onto the world, rather than a biblical worldview (i.e., the truth of Scripture). Maybe he should be holding onto a big, steady boulder.

The globe is right-side up -- it doesn't look tilted, so it works against the title. Maybe the guy could be the one who's right side up, with the earth placed on a tilt. Or flip the whole image around about 270 degrees so it comes from the bottom corner, and only shows the man from the waist up.

Also, there could be a few cynics who misread the upside-down man figure as being a symbol of God (an out-of-touch-yet-stern dad figure in a fuddy-duddy suit, not unlike the old man with a beard in The Far Side cartoons).

2.) Cover #1 is visually cluttered. It's trying to do too much. The grainy feel contributes a lot to it, as well as the blue bar at the top (What's that for, anyway? Is it the ground, or the sky?) The figure with the globe would be much more eye-catching without the bar. The tilted word stands out on Cover #2, but here the tilt just adds to the clutter.

I think that covers it. Sorry I wasn't brief. I was aiming for being detailed.

The Rules

PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.

Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.

See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.

If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.

Followers

Stats Attack!

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.